All News

Take the money?

Transfer responses to a 1C opening bid are becoming quite popular. Although today’s deal does feature this method, the problem is as much about judgement and reading the opponents’ bidding as it is about this method. Even if you may not play transfer responses, you will certainly have faced opponents’ pre-emptive bidding as below and thus how to cope with that becomes relevant to all. We are playing Teams.

 

1  promises at least 3 clubs and 1 showed at least 4 hearts. 1 showed exactly 3 hearts.  Then, the opponents intervened with partner forcing with 2. You showed little desire to bid over 3 but partner kept the bidding alive by doubling. What now?

Our Panel have different interpretations of the auction so far:

Nigel Kearney “4: Hard to answer without knowing the methods. If partner had a take-out double of spades (e.g. 1444), they would have doubled 1 so they don't have that.

I think 2 should be a hand that knows where it wants to play and wants to set up a force and maybe investigate slam. Since partner didn't bid 4, it sounds like they have club support and are doubling to keep open the possibility of 3x or 3NT. Maybe something like x Axxx Qxx AKxxx. It could be right to pass but given the level of uncertainty about the meaning of the auction, it seems more prudent to bid 4. If I am right partner will probably bid 5 and I will have a decent chance of making that.”

The description given to the Panel of 2 was “ forcing and perhaps looking for a spade hold".

That bid came in for a bit of criticism:

Wayne Burrows “3NT: Firstly, I don't like the methods. Not so much the transfer response although I don't think that 1h showing three hearts is the best use for completing the transfer. The bigger problems as I see them are with the 2 cue-bid which took up a whole level of bidding without any precise definition and no partnership description of pass. I think 2 should be showing some sort of fit for hearts or maybe clubs. I think that is what North has but it would be good for the partnership to know that.  The problem hands are hands with five hearts and too strong for 4 or a hand with club support and too strong for game. 

 

Hands that don't know where they are going can make a take-out double on the second round. What is opener going to do with a reasonably balanced hand with a spade stopper after 1 is doubled? Why bid 1NT of course (if it is available) so double and not 2 should be used as the directional ask and 2 should be reserved for something more specific.

 

It appears partner has one spade, only four hearts otherwise some attempt to show the heart fit directly for example with a 3 splinter on the second round. I don't think partner should have five diamonds and game values as then there should be a bid to show diamonds first. That means that responder has five clubs at least unless 1=4=4=4.

I suppose I bid 3NT now which will show a poor stopper as otherwise 3NT on the previous round. Partner can pull with a hand unsuitable to play 3NT opposite Qxx and partner can't expect more than this.”

Heading for our major is:

Andy Braithwaite “4: partner must have 5 hearts to bid 2. Playing transfer responses most play “xyz” where you would bid 2 or 2 artificial to clarify the hand so 2 would be an unnecessary bid hence avoiding this problem. But double is surely take-out giving an option to pass with good spades.”
Bringing up a very good point about West’s bidding is :

Leon Meier “3NT: partner's double is just action/values trying to go for 3NT or 4 in a 4-3 fit. Our heart values are good for 4 but the spades will be being ruffed in the long hand, so unless we have enough tricks outside to just discard instead of trumping, and lose the first 3 spade tricks then take the rest, then 4 will not be good. The fact West passed then bid 1 probably means their suit quality is poor which makes me think the AK could be on-side for 3NT, or partner could have singleton honour. Those factors combined make me bid 3NT but 4 could be the place.”

West has something other than a standard overcall or else they would have bid directly over 1. If that “something other” is AKxx or Kxxxx is unclear. In the first case, 3NT may be best while in the second, you may lose the first 5 tricks there very quickly.

This uncertainty about our making any game makes “taking the money”  more attractive:

 

    Stephen Blackstock “Pass: Not a popular choice I imagine, but I am far from sure that either 4 or 3NT will be a good contract. On the face of it North is balanced, typically 2443 or 2434, as he has not bid 4 , made a take-out double of 1, or bid a second suit. Unless he has a spade honour, 3NT is likely down on top, and 4 will be no fun getting tapped in the long trump hand. If he does have a top spade, their 5-3 fit won't be a picnic for declarer, and regardless 3x doesn't start a favourite to make from what we know.

 

Of course I may misunderstand these methods entirely. On the face of it, 2 as simply "forcing" is a waste of space - in which case I take it all back.

You do have support, Stephen:

 

Bruce Anderson “Pass: 3NT is the alternative, particularly given that we are playing Teams, but there is the risk partner, who must have game going values, has nothing in spades. My pass of 3 means I am unlikely to be unbalanced, and with something like Ax AQxx Jxx KQxx, partner might have either bid 3NT or cue bid again; then I would bid 3NT, played from the right side. Partner is aware I have 3 hearts so he/she must only hold 4 or they would have bid the heart game.

So with some trepidation, I am passing partner’s double for penalties, rather than risk being off the spade suit in 3NT.”

 

Peter Newell “Pass: At Pairs, I would bid 3NT. Partner’s 2 bid is strong and either a NT probe or possibly a good hand with hearts. While my spade stopper is tenuous, I passed over 3  when with a good spade stopper I would have bid 3NT, and my hand pattern lends itself to 3NT. 

However, the opponents' bidding is weak. West did not bid 1 at favourable at their first opportunity usually a sign of a weak hand/suit. East couldn't bid over 1. So, I do not think the opponents have got great hands, but they could have enough to defeat 3NT and I expect we will get a reasonable penalty.  At Teams, I'll take the money as +500 is not much of a loss to 600, and we will go down sometimes in 3NT.

On this particular occasion, 3NT could be made while the penalty from passing 3x should be +500 but I agree with the passers. Take a sure plus, even a small one.

 

There are 6 top tricks for the defence in 3x and there is a case for West to play North for Qx, in view of North’s reluctance to bid 3NT. Also, if North starts with a slightly unusual defence of AKJ, declarer cannot stop North getting a club ruff with 10. If they draw 2 rounds of trumps via a successful finesse, South will win a red suit trick to play a third round of trumps…and the defence will take 3 heart tricks.

Meanwhile, after a high spade lead and club switch, against 3NT, declarer can duck a diamond to West and will thus make the 13^th diamond as their 9^th trick.

To succeed, 4 needs West to hold Qxx or misdefence to make. Neither occurred in that contract.

The "money" may have been insufficient but the loss would have been less than going down in game. 

Richard Solomon

Go Back View All News Items